Positive Change II

Today I came across a really great article called The Great Turning by Joanna Macy. It addresses the shift happening within the world, from the "Industrial Growth Society to a life-sustaining civilization". What I like most about the article is that it incorporates the different aspects of this shift; it has helped me link the jigsaw pieces together and has helped answer some questions I have had for a while. These questions include what is the point of direct action or protests (like stopping someone chop down a woodland) when the problem is so global and there are so many problems that we can't address them all? Or what is the point of trying to change government when it takes so long for any changes to be made? Or what is the role of spiritual change in the changing of the world?

The article lays out the three dimensions to the change that is going on: actions to slow the damage to Earth and its beings; analysis of structural causes and the creation of structural alternatives; and shift in Consciousness. It describes the parts these all play and gives examples of each. It is an article that to me helps create a more whole understanding of part of the change we humans are undergoing, and in doing this it creates more faith in the fact that positive change is happening.

I will leave you with a quote from Joanna Macy's website:

"The most remarkable feature of this historical moment on Earth is not that we are on the way to destroying the world-we've actually been on the way for quite a while. It is that we are beginning to wake up, as from a millennia-long sleep, to a whole new relationship to our world, to ourselves and each other."

An Open Letter to the Pope.

Dear Pope,

Following your recent statement that AIDS 'cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms' but that they 'even aggravate the problems', I feel that I must offer you some advice: it is really about time that you get a technician to have a look at your direct connection to God, I fear there is some interference on the line. Have you thought of upgrading to broadband?

I have heard, as no doubt must you (though I can certainly get you references if you have not), that God is both loving and wise. AIDS as you may or may not know causes vast suffering, causing many, many deaths, including leaving countless children orphaned. You therefore understand that God must want this situation remedied? Now I know your life in the Vatican is a little sheltered, but surely in your time in the Hitler Youth you must have learnt that most ordinary humans like sex. You must also realise that God is wiser than to suggest for an entire continent not to have sex until the AIDS epidemic ceases and that therefore condoms, and education on the proper use of condoms, is the best option.

I therefore suggest that the message from God was not that AIDS 'cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms' but that they 'even aggravate the problems', but rather 'AIDS CAN be overcome through the distribution of condoms, and good education on their use can FURTHER HELP the problems'. I hope this clears up any confusion on your behalf and I am sure you now understand the importance of maintaining a good quality connection. If you ask my advice, Virgin Media seem to offer quite a reliable broadband connection service - I have never had any problems connecting to my friends, it is also aptly named for a Pope!

Yours sincerely

Mark J

PS. Thousands of millions of men, women and children are dying of malnutrition, ever thought of using the church's vast wealth and influence to feed them?

Detoxes Dont Work, In Skeptisism We Trust

DETOXES DON'T WORK

A common headline at this time of year.

This is generally said by a scientist of the evangelical skepticist type. Or by one of their disciples.

Of course they say this strutting along with their heads held high in the knowledge that they alone are saved from the fiery pits of superstition and are living in the kingdom of true and everlasting knowledge.

But as is often the case with those who state absolutes, their absoluteness makes them wrong.

In science there is not The Truth, there are only competing bodies of evidence. I have read evidence supporting some types of detox (fasting), no doubt the skeptics have some evidence that shows some types don't work, probably, or maybe not, some scientists are just as religious as the rest of us: once they have formed a set of beliefs they will dismiss or fight alternative beliefs and will criticise perfectly valid research. Once the scientific / medical world ridiculed the idea that washing hands before performing a medical procedure was a good idea!

OK, actually I want to make something clear, science is good and useful, it is dogmatic belief which is not. Science done properly is a remedy against dogmatic belief: if evidence comes to light that contradicts your beliefs you should take that evidence seriously and question your beliefs. Sadly in practice this isn't always done, instead evidence that contradicts beliefs is treated harshly while evidence that supports those same beliefs is warmly accepted no questions asked.

So anyway, if lots of people feel better after doing a detox it is no good going up to them, slapping them in the face and telling them to stop feeling good because actually their liver was doing a good enough job of detoxing them anyway. OK, the word detox is very poorly defined, and the money addicts are of course cashing in on this as much as anything else, but the statement 'Detoxes don't work' is wrong. Saying some detoxes or detox products don't work may very well be true, but for some people some types of detox do have a positive effect - or so I believe anyway!

Do we have ideas, or do ideas have us?

Right, we obviously like to think that humans are the center of the universe, much like thinking the sun and the planets, indeed the whole universe, rotates around OUR planet, but here is a little problem that has just occurred to me: ideas seem bigger and more dominant than humans, with humans just forming little parts of an idea. Let me explain...

When we are born we largely inherit beliefs of our parents, for example, if your parents happen to believe in creation as opposed to evolution you will likely do the same. So the idea was inherited, you didn't create the idea, you were born into it. Beliefs like this are also self-sustaining, controlling your interpretation of evidence: if you believe in creation you are likely to dismiss evidence for evolution and visa versa. Now add this to the fact that often ideas control how people live their lives and you have to start asking who is the boss!

An idea may be formed of millions of people, controlling all of them to an extent, might pass itself from one group of people to the next, have its individual participants develop and spread it, will resist its members transferring from one ideology to another.

Of course this doesn't just apply to religion but to all ideas, often with the bigger the idea the bigger its power. All is dependent on what information or ideas you come in contact with and often there is little choice - it depends on the community you were raised in and the media you come in contact with. It also seems very unlikely for anyone to know enough information to be able to choose for themselves and be unbias enough to choose freely between ideologies.

So which is bigger and more in control, our ideas or us that hold the ideas?

It would seem often it is the ideas; often, but not always.